Metropolitan Police officers arrested 325 people outside the US embassy in London during a demonstration supporting the banned group Palestine Action on Saturday 31 October, with a bus used to transport some detainees.
The revised total, confirmed by police on Sunday, is more than twice the 139 arrests reported while the operation was still under way on Saturday evening. Of the 325 arrests, police said 320 were on suspicion of expressing support for a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act. Arrest is not a finding of guilt.
What we know about the protest
Hundreds of demonstrators gathered near the US embassy in Nine Elms, south-west London, for an event organised by Defend Our Juries. The group estimated attendance at about 400. Many participants were older people, and some held placards declaring support for Palestine Action.
In a statement published on 23 October, Defend Our Juries had explicitly forecast mass arrests and described the planned action as deliberate defiance intended to highlight freedom-of-expression issues ahead of the Supreme Court hearing.
Press Association photographs, carried by ITV News, show officers carrying a protester towards a bus. Novara Media reported that the vehicle was operated by Kent-based GoBus and had been privately hired for the police operation. The precise hiring arrangements and cost have not been independently established by Fish 4 News.
The total of 325 arrests was reported by ITV News following an update issued by the Metropolitan Police. The much lower figure of 139 in early reports was an interim count, rather than an alternative estimate of the final number.
What police have said
Ahead of the gathering, police warned that people expressing support for Palestine Action could be arrested. In a 30 October statement, Commander Adam Slonecki also warned that individuals considered to be taking a key role in organising the event, giving instructions or providing logistical support could face enforcement action.
Slonecki said the operation was “not about preventing people from expressing their views, but about acting robustly in cases where doing so involves criminality”. The Met also argued that policing such gatherings diverted officers from other duties.
Those statements describe the Met’s position. They do not establish whether every arrest was justified or whether any individual detained will be charged or convicted.
Why support for Palestine Action can be an offence
Palestine Action was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 on 5 July 2025, following parliamentary approval. The government has cited actions involving serious property damage and has defended proscription as evidence-based. Supporters of the group argue the decision criminalises peaceful political expression and protest.
Importantly, the law does not simply prohibit every mention of the organisation. Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to express an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation while being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage another person to support it. The particular words, circumstances and evidence matter to the legal test.
The separate provision under section 13 also covers certain displays of clothing and articles where circumstances arouse reasonable suspicion of membership or support. Whether a particular protester has committed an offence is ultimately a question for the legal process, not the arrest count.
No arrests at the Edinburgh demonstration
A similar protest was held near the US consulate in Edinburgh on Saturday. Police Scotland confirmed that it made no arrests at the event, but said officers were reviewing evidence to identify individuals seen displaying apparent support for a proscribed organisation. Further action was not ruled out.
That difference in immediate police action has prompted accusations of inconsistent enforcement. It does not mean the prohibition applies in England but not Scotland: the Terrorism Act provisions are UK-wide, and the absence of on-the-day arrests is not the same as a decision not to investigate. STV reported the Police Scotland statement.
Questions over similar words and different outcomes
Novara Media also reported that a woman was arrested in London while holding a sign using wording similar to an earlier social-media post by author Sarah Helm, the wife of national security adviser Jonathan Powell. Her October post expressed support for Palestine and Palestine Action.
The Metropolitan Police had assessed Helm’s post and decided there was insufficient evidence to meet the criminal threshold, according to Sky News reporting on 17 October. Novara said the protester’s sign substituted “retirees” for “authors”.
The comparison raises legitimate questions about consistency, but it does not by itself prove that the two incidents were legally identical. Fish 4 News has not independently established the precise grounds or subsequent outcome of the reported placard arrest.
Did Donald Trump influence the ban?
Defend Our Juries has alleged that pressure from US President Donald Trump influenced the UK’s decision to ban Palestine Action, pointing to damage caused to the president’s Turnberry golf course in March 2025. Trump publicly commented on that incident, and the United States subsequently imposed terrorism-related sanctions on Palestine Action.
There is no independently verified evidence establishing that Trump directed, demanded or secured the UK proscription decision. The allegations are part of the protesters’ argument, not a confirmed explanation of why the British government acted.
Supreme Court appeal on 4 and 5 November
The legality of the ban is being challenged by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori. The UK Supreme Court lists a hearing for 4 and 5 November 2026.
The case has an important procedural history. The Divisional Court previously ruled against the government on grounds concerning its published policy and freedom of expression, but the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment. The Supreme Court has allowed Ammori to appeal only on the question of whether proscription is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning freedom of expression and assembly. It refused permission to appeal on the separate ground concerning the interpretation and application of the Home Secretary’s published policy.
Correction (4 November 2026): An earlier version of this article incorrectly described which ground the Supreme Court had permitted to proceed. The permitted ground concerns Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the court refused permission on the separate ground concerning the Home Secretary’s policy.
The ban remains in force while the court considers the appeal. A hearing is not itself a ruling, and a judgment may follow later.
What remains unclear
- The hiring arrangements, cost and operational justification for the bus used in London.
- How many of the 325 arrested people will ultimately be charged, prosecuted or convicted.
- Why the different individuals discussed in the Sarah Helm comparison were treated differently.
- Whether any documentary evidence will emerge to substantiate claims of US pressure over the ban.
Fish 4 News will follow the Supreme Court hearing and any further police updates.
